Sunteți pe pagina 1din 11

Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2011, 22(4), 412-422

The Interaction between Top Management and Line Managers Implementing


Strategic Directions into Praxis

Asta Savaneviciene, Zivile Stankeviciute


Kaunas University of Technology
K. Donelaicio st. 73, LT-44029, Kaunas, Lithuania
e-mail: asta.savaneviciene@ktu.lt, zivile.stankeviciute@stud.ktu.lt
http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.4.716

Organizations nowadays face crucial business conclusion that the interaction between top management
challenges, like globalization, profitability through growth, and line managers implementing strategic directions into
technology integration, intellectual capital management, praxis should be considered as a central issue of
continuous change. Seeking to survive in the turbulent management literature.
environment organizations need to assess the complexity of The paper is based on the material of the Leonardo da
environment and to choose strategic development directions Vinci innovation transferring project “Crossnational
which are concretized in organizational strategy. quality management in continuing learning for people with
Every organization is guided by its strategy, by a low educational attainment in the European context”
design or plan for achieving an organization's policy goals ("Länderübergreifendes Qualitätsmanagement in der
and objectives, however the inequality between intended Weiterbildung für Personen mit niedrigem Bildungsstand
and implemented strategies exists (Mintzberg, 1978). im Europäischen Kontext“) (No 2009-1-PL-LEO05-05039).
Acknowledging this fact, the paper raises a question why Keywords: strategy, strategy implementation, top
organizations focus on difficulties by implementing their management, line managers, top management
strategies and provides an insight into the aspects related and line managers interaction.
to a successful implementation of an intended strategy into
praxis.
Introduction
The fruitful strategy formulation and the effective
strategy implementation require the coordination of multiple It is acknowledged that the success of the organization
actors and their activities (Heide, Gronhaug & Johannessen, depends on how effectively the organization manages its
2002). Whereas top management is responsible for the internal activities and how well its behaviour fits with the
strategic and organizational decisions that affect the environmental conditions (Popova & Sharpanskykh, 2011).
organization as a whole (Helfat, Harris & Wolfson, 2006) In that context the value of the organizational strategic
and line managers operate as an intermediary between directions and the strategy arises. The strategic directions
strategic and operational organizational activities encompass the mission and vision of the organization, also
(McCarthy, Darcy & Grady, 2010), the interaction between determine what the organization intends to achieve in the
these two key actors in order to minimize the gap between future. However the realization of the strategic directions
strategies is essential. requires some concreteness, which depends on various
Assuming that some aspects may affect the success of aspects, as organizational orientation or specific
key actors interaction, the assumptions, which determine the characteristics of organization. Due to this fact the
nature of interaction are presented. The paper looks into organization needs the strategy, that concretizes strategic
four assumptions: organizational culture, organizational directions and in here it is essential to emphasize that
structure, communication and allocation of resources which without implementation, even the best strategy is useless.
discloses the complexity of interaction. Strategy formulation and transforming it into action is
The paper proposes the discussion concerning the top the process, which requires multiple actors and activities.
management and line managers interaction and the key Although, according to Dandira (2011), “there is a
dimensions of that interaction seeking to ensure the syndrome in top management that strategic planning is
implementation of strategic directions into praxis. Whereas supposed to be formulated by them alone, and for them it
top management and line managers can cooperate in a is a sign of power and an expression of the magnitude of
various number of activities, some dimensions of interaction the difference between them and their subordinates“, but
are more significant. Goals determination, strategy more actors should be involved in strategy formulation
formulation and strategy implementation are three key seeking to get acceptance of other members of
dimensions where interaction between top management and organization, while members become more accepting of
line managers is in demand if the organization strives to change when they understand how the change will achieve
translate strategic directions into praxis. organizational goals and how it will affect the work
Finally assessing the character of activity and the environment (Moore, Konrad & Hunt, 2010). As line
discussed assumptions, the theoretical aspects on managers handle directly employees and convey
interaction between top management and line managers organizational goals, their involvement in strategy
were verified during the empirical research in educational formulation is crucial.
organizations and is presented in this paper. This brings to

ISSN 1392 – 2785 (print) -412-


ISSN 2029 – 5839 (online)
Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2011, 22(4), 412-422

Line managers deal with processes how to implement As modern concepts of strategy are abstract, complex
strategy, which is expected to guide the organization and ambiguous (Vanttinen & Pyhalto, 2009), the
forward, and how to achieve that the components of successful implementation of intended strategy into praxis
strategy would be implemented by every member of the is related to the evaluation of several aspects (Nollet,
organization. Meanwhile, top management can create the Ponce & Campbell, 2005). First, the dynamic nature of the
support atmosphere in the organization and through strategy concept which is defined by internal and external
communication within the organization and through own processes. The organization has to handle the complexity
actions shape and define the collective interpretations held of changes and to realize that the interaction between the
by organization members in general (Barker III & Barr, key actors by implementing strategic directions into praxis
2002). Due to top management and line managers will be under influence of changes within and outside the
influence on success of the strategy implementation, the organization. Second, the set of decision-making rules for
interaction between these two actors is essential. guidance of organizational behaviour. These rules can
In the scientific literature (Mintzberg, 1978) it has simplify or make complicated the interaction, likewise the
been long recognized that there is difference between implementation of intended strategy. Third, the subjective
intended and implemented strategies. The gap of and objective nature of strategy. This aspect is directly
interaction between the key actors (top management and related to key actors, as the number of key actors and the
line managers) in the process of the strategy formulation personality of top management and line managers
and implementation is one of the reasons for inadequacy. influence the subjective nature of strategy and allow to
Due to the lack of interaction, the organization can fail to reach objectivity though subjectivity. Fourth, an approach
achieve the goals that depend on the specific characteristics to strategy as a never-ending project. Seeking to survive
of the organization, on interests of the stakeholders and on organizations need to renew strategic directions and again
the type of the environment in which the organization is to force the interaction of top management and line
situated. manager by transforming directions into praxis.
The problem stated in the paper: how to achieve the Whereas the practical purpose of strategy is to provide
interaction between top management and line managers a plan that employs multiple inputs, options, and outputs to
and what are the key dimensions of interaction in order to achieve a company's policy goals and objectives
ensure the implementation of strategic directions to the (Warnock, 2000): strategy decides how the organization's
praxis. goals and objectives will be achieved, what operational
The research aim is theoretically and empirically to units will be used and how those operational units will be
examine the interaction between top management and line structured; strategy also determines what resources will be
managers and disclose key dimensions of interaction. needed and how these resources will be acquired and used.
Seeking to minimize the gap between intended and According to Heide, Gronhaug and Hohannessen
implemented strategies and hereby to ensure the strategic (2002), a formulated strategy must be implemented before
directions maintenance the paper argues the necessity for it can be of specific value to an organization, though
the interaction between top management and line intended strategy is not equal to implemented strategy.
managers, analyses key assumptions that determine the Despite the fact that the difference between two strategies
nature of this interaction and presents main dimensions for is determined by dynamic environment and this could be
interaction by implementing strategic directions into treated as positive aspect due to organization’s abilities to
praxis. react fast to the changes, the problematic aspect of the
Research object is the interaction between top deviation from the intended strategy exist and is related to
management and line managers. incapability to perceive or to materialize that what was
Research method. The paper is built on the analysis constructed. This means that even “good” strategy can be
and synthesis of scientific literature and qualitative research. not implemented despite the fact, that a considerable amount
of time and a lot of efforts are appointed to choose the most
Concept of intended and implemented strategies effective strategy (Gudonavicius, Bartoseviciene &
Saparnis, 2009). In that way the question concerning the
Strategic directions determine the organization reasons of incongruity between two strategies arise.
development trends and are concretized in the strategy. According to Heide et al. (2002), successful implementation
Mintzberg (1978) argues strategy has at least two different of strategy requires active and premeditated actions that
meanings - one ‘‘take strategy as a plan’’ (strategy-as- include the coordination of multiple actors and activities. In
intend) and another ‘‘take strategy as a pattern’’ (strategy- that case the minimal as possible gap between intended and
as-implemented). The intended strategy represents only implemented strategies depends on the key actors, their
fundamental directions and one of the main challenges is to interaction and key activities. This means that the question
implement it, it means to put the formulated strategy to concerning who is involved in the process should be
work. However, organizations focus with difficulties by answered.
implementing their strategies. The problems arise due to
some reasons (Aaltonen & Ikavalko, 2002): weak Top management and line managers as the key
management roles in implementation, lack of commitment
actors
to the strategy, unawareness of misunderstanding of the
strategy, unaligned organizational systems and resources, Top management and line managers are key actors in
poor coordination and sharing responsibilities. the process of bringing strategic directions to the practical

- 413 -
Asta Savaneviciene, Zivile Stankeviciute. The Interaction between Top Management and Line Managers…

environment. Top management defines where to go management and line managers can have particular
whereas line managers deal with how to do. imaginations and in that context the gap arises between
The term ‘‘top management“ can be defined as ‘‘the strategic prescriptions and actual practice. The intended
set of individuals at the top of the organization responsible and the implemented strategies can significantly differ one
for the strategic and organizational decisions that affect the from another and due to this factor the organization can
direction, operations, and performance of the company as a confront with difficulties to achieve success in market.
whole’’ (Helfat, Harris & Wolfson, 2006). It is Interaction between two key actors means that both
acknowledged that the strategic actions of organizations sides coordinate their actions and cooperate seeking to
are guided by the beliefs or the interpretations of top achieve the main goals of the organization. In this case it is
management (Barker III & Barr, 2002) and that top very important to spread the information, to ask for
managers play a crucial role in strategic decisions (Camelo proposals, to discuss the idea, to draw the conclusions
and Alles & Hernandez, 2011). Besides that, in the based upon the brainstorm and to implement decisions that
scientific literature huge amount of top management roles were agreed. However, it is essential to highlight that both
and responsibilities is highlighted. First, Gebhardt, actors have their own roles and responsibilities and can not
Carpenter and Sherry (2006) state that top management be replaced one by another or cannot search for a common
focus is essential to begin and to direct the process of decision in all primary and support activities from a value-
organizational change. Organizational change creates chain. Acknowledging this fact, the interaction remains
uncertainty and top management as key agents of important, because it could provide with some ideas in
organizational change (Cole, Harris & Bernerth, 2006) which field, what questions and how deep could be analyzed
must offer a clear rationale for transformation if they want by the interaction of top management and line managers.
to get acceptance from other members of organization The identification of the key actors does not reveal the
(Moore et al., 2010), hereby the key processes that help to necessity for the interaction between top management and
create lasting organizational change flow downward from line managers. The review of the key actors tasks and
the actions of top managers (Cole et. al., 2006). Second, responsibilities highlights the significance of the
new product development demands top management interaction (see Figure 1).
commitment, which consists of top management support
and top management attitude toward risk. Support means Clear formulation and perception
that top managers provide teams with encouragement and Commitment
Interaction

help them overcome problems meanwhile top management


attitude toward risk may moderate the direct and positive Organizational empowerment
effect of communication on cooperation (Rodriguez, Perez Notice of problems on “lower“ level
& Gutierrez, 2008). Third, in competitive business context
innovation has become a key factor for the successful Transmission of messages
performance of most organizations and top management is
important in promoting a strategy of innovation by the Figure 1. The reasons for the interaction between top
process of influence (Camelo et al., 2011). management and line managers
Source: developed by the authors
According to Hales (2006), line managers duties are
often “undertaken in circumstances of considerable As it is seen from Figure 1, the interaction is relevant
ambiguity: being accountable for operational effectiveness due to several reasons: first, the interaction provides clear
but having limited authority or influence over the ‘system’ formulation of strategic directions and equal their
decisions that could determine effectiveness”. As stated perception as well for both key actors: top management
McCarthy, Darcy and Grady (2010) line managers act as and line managers.
intermediary between strategic and operational Second, the involvement of line managers into the
organizational activities. development of strategy strengthens their commitment to
Sisson (1994) states that the key role for top the organization. Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979)
management and line managers is clear. Top managers defined organizational commitment as a strong belief in
should offer “transformational leadership” through the the organization’s goals and values and a willingness to
establishment of an organization’s mission and values, and exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization. As
by being highly visible and sharing their vision for future Macky and Boxall (2007) stated, committed workers not
success with other employees, meanwhile line managers only identify psychologically with the employer and feel
have an essential role to play through their ability to stronger attachment to the organization, they are also more
“inspire, encourage, enable and facilitate change by likely to expend discretionary effort towards achieving
harnessing commitment and co-operation of (the organizational results.
organization’s) employees“ (Thornhill & Saunders, 1998). Third, the interaction provides organizational
Very similar view concerning top management follow empowerment which is about employees having an influence
Kakabadse, McMahon and Myers (1995) underlying that over issues that go beyond the narrow requirements of task
the work of top management can be described as external performance (Wood & Wall, 2007).
and internal leadership: the external leadership is the Fourth, line managers notice the emergent problems on
ability to translate external needs to internal vision, “lower” level and due to interaction transmit these
meanwhile the internal leadership is the ability to translate questions to top management, therefore the correlation of
vision into employee action. Hence, two actors: top some strategic directions is possible.

- 414 -
Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2011, 22(4), 412-422

Fifth, line managers “bring policies to life” (Purcell et enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught
al., 2003) and do not act as “robotic conformists” to new members as the correct way you perceive, think,
(Marchington & Grugulis, 2000) in enacting directions, and feel in relation to those problems”. Organizational
they have an opinion regarding the style of behaviour and culture has the capability to integrate daily activities of
the issues and their opinion should be treated seriously. employees to reach the planned goals, also help
Sixth, line managers have a direct contact with organizations adapt well to the external environment for
employees who can understand the directions in different rapid and appropriate responses (Nguyen & Mohamed,
way and under these circumstances as the result of the 2011). Hereby, the interaction between top management
interaction between top management and line managers the and line managers depends on the organizational culture,
transparent description of strategic directions can be on its visible and invisible characteristics.
arranged. As stated Cocks (2010), if the process of Communication. Communication is the exchange and
strategic planning is undertaken only by top management, flow of information and thoughts from one individual to
the staff is less likely to be enthusiastic about implementing another. Communicating is a critical skill for managers -
something it has no voice in creating. they must be able clearly to communicate both inside and
The relevance of top management and line managers outside the organization (Buoziute-Rafanaviciene,
interaction reveals possible interaction outcomes, however Pundziene & Turauskas, 2009). Effective communication
does not provide an answer to the question why means that the receiver understands the exact idea that the
organizations have difficulties in the process of interaction, sender is intended to transmit. Hax and Majluf (1984) state
under which circumstances the interaction brings added that in organizations where management is unable to
value to the organization. communicate the strategy in a meaningful manner to all
relevant subjects, the strategy will most likely never be
Assumptions and the main dimensions for implemented (Heide et al., 2002).
interaction Allocation of resources. Grant‘s (1998) classification
of organizational resources comprises three major kinds of
The identification of key actors and the significance of resources: tangible (financial and physical), intangible
interaction do not disclose the assumptions, which (culture, reputation and technology) and human and all of
determine the nature of interaction between top these resources are essential for organizational success
management and line managers. According to Heide et al. (Kazlauskaite & Buciuniene, 2008). According to Warnick
(2002), several studies have focused on the aspects of the (2002), the organization's resources make the formulation
organization that may affect the success of strategy of strategies possible and give effect to strategy
implementation. As the main aspects influencing the implementation: resources are the sine qua non of strategy:
interaction between top management and line managers without resources, strategy can achieve nothing. Heide et
are: 1) organizational structure, 2) organizational culture, al. (2002) highlight the same idea emphasizing that
3) communication, 4) allocation of resources. without sufficient resources it is difficult, if not impossible,
Organizational structure. Organizational structure can to implement planned strategic activities.
be defined as the relationship between tasks, individuals Top management and line managers can interact in all
and formal and informal channels (Olsen et al., 1992; activities that run in the organization, however some fields
Heide et al., 2002). An organization can be structured in are more important than other. It is meaningful to highlight
many different ways depending on its objectives. three main dimensions - determination of goals, strategy
According to Thorpe and Morgan (2007), the structure of formulation, strategy implementation – where the
the organization influences the flow of information and the interaction between main actors is essential in order to
context and nature of interpersonal interaction within it. implement strategic directions into praxis.
Hereby, the structure of an organization will determine the Determination of goals. Each organization exists for
modes in which it operates and performs and affects the achievement of one or more goals which vary depending
strategy implementation indirectly through its influence on on the type of an organization and the environmental
information, control and decision processes (Heide et al, conditions. These goals might not be formulated explicitly,
2002). Consequently, interaction between top management however they are taken into account in all or most decisions
and line managers is based on organization structure and otherwise the organization will not exist for a very long
runs according legitimated processes of information period. A goal is an objective to be satisfied describing a
sharing, decisions making and monitoring. desired state or development of the organization or an
Organizational culture. Organizational culture is an individual and is characterized by the features, like: 1) name,
idea, which describes the psychology, attitudes, 2) definition, 3) priority, 4) evaluation type, 5) horizon, 6)
experiences, beliefs and values of an organization. Hill and ownership, 7) perspective, 8) hardness, 9) negotiability
Jones (2001) define organization culture as the specific (Popova & Sharpanskykh, 2011). The organization can
collection of values and norms that are shared by people have “hard” (the satisfaction of them can be determined in
and groups in an organization and that control the way they a clear-cut way by evaluating conditions in goal
interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the expressions) and “soft” (the satisfaction of them is difficult
organization. According to Schein (2004), organizational to assess, since they refer to not directly measurable
culture is “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was quantities) goals.
learned by a group as it solved its problems of external The interaction between top management and line
adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well managers by determining goals is very important as goals

- 415 -
Asta Savaneviciene, Zivile Stankeviciute. The Interaction between Top Management and Line Managers…

describe a desired state of organization, identify what it Research methodology


intends to be in the future. By formulating the goals is
significant that goals should be measurable, realistic, According to Yin (1994), research strategy should be
attainable, also challenging (Dandira, 2011). The chosen as a function of the research situation, while both
interaction between top management and line managers qualitative and quantitative methods involve weaknesses
and the synergy due to brainstorm allow to fix and to reach and strengths (Amaratunga et al., 2002). It is very
the goals which lead to sustainable competitive advantage. important to get a persuasive research result, therefore the
Strategy formulation. Referring to Raffoni (2003), choosing of one or several suitable methods can be the
Cocks (2010) argues that strategy formulation is usually vital part of the research work (Shahalizadeh, Amirjamshidi
regarded as the exclusive domain of top management & Shahalizadeh, 2009).
because it rewards creativity: the most admired and valued Qualitative enquiry often takes the form of a case
of all intellectual pursuits. However, strategy formulation study. Referring to Merriam (1998), Shahalizadeh et. al.
needs input from the operational level to bring reliable (2009) argue that the case study is designed to gain an in-
insights into organisational capabilities and resource depth understanding of the situation and meaning which
constraints and due to this the role of line managers are involved. According to Yin (1994), case study is the
increases. On some occasions, ideas emerge from intuition preferred research approach when “how'' or “why''
or suggestions that can be made by these people that are questions are being posed, similarly Hyde (2000) states
really in touch with the task (Giner, Guerrero & Ortiz, that case study is simply an in-depth study of a particular
2010), therefore the line managers as the bridge between top instance, or a small number of instances. According to Yin
management and employees can propose significant ideas. (1994), interviews are suitable when the researcher is
Strategy implementation. Strategy implementation is interested in uncovering a diversity of relevant or
defined as an iterative process of implementing strategies, unanticipated responses for the exploration. In here, it was
policies, programs and action plans that allow a firm to chosen to use a case study and interview as research
utilize its resources, to take advantage of opportunities in methods seeking to understand the interaction between top
the competitive environment (Harrington, 2006). As it was management and line managers by implementing strategic
mentioned before, there is the gap between intended and directions into praxis.
implemented strategies. According to Cocks (2010), the The data are derived from research conducted in two
causes of breakdown in strategy implementation relate to educational organizations in Lithuania. These organizations
the capabilities, processes and activities that are needed to implement quality development system using the Learner-
bring the strategy to life. Referring to Wessel (1993), Oriented Quality Development and Certification (LQW)
Dandira (2011) argues that top down management style, model (Zech, 2008) and according to the nature of the
the top management working style and poor vertical LQW model the organizations have described themselves
communication are obstacles to strategy implementation. in the self-evaluation reports. The organization A deals
One of the possibilities to avoid these barriers is the with continuing education for adults with higher education
interaction between top management and line managers. degree. The organization B provides courses for all
Control and feedback mechanisms, which are possible due categories of people.
to interaction, are necessary to hone the strategy Two self-evaluation reports are the object of the
implementation. analysis. Based on the self-evaluation reports, the experts
Based on the theoretical approach, a virtual gave their evaluation and identified gaps of interaction
representation of the interaction of top management and between top management and line managers, also have
line managers is shown in Figure 2. provided the proposals concerning the interaction
development. During the interview with a top manager of
Main dimensions
each organization the usefulness and expediency of the
Assumptions
influencing the for the interaction: proposals were discussed. In the findings section just the
interaction: Interaction analysis of interaction between top management and line
between top managers by implementing strategic directions into praxis
Organizational management Determination of
and line goals;
is presented.
structure;
Organizational culture; managers Strategy
Communication; formulation; Findings
Allocation of resources Strategy
implementation Determination of goals. According to self-evaluation
reports, both organizations have involved not only top
Figure 2. Interaction between top management and line managers management and line managers, but also the employees in
Source: developed by the authors
goals determination. The organizations highlight that the
mission and vision and strategic goals were created as part
In summing up, it could be highlighted, that four of an interactive process, however the organization A has
presented assumptions influencing the interaction between discussed strategic directions more deeply across the
top management and line managers structure the organization hierarchy, meanwhile the organization B has
interaction nature and determine the quality of interaction, chosen only the spread of information and due to this no
meanwhile three main dimensions present the trends for contradictory discussions took place.
interaction in order to implement strategic directions into Organization A. Concerning the organization A the
praxis. gap in interaction between top management and line

- 416 -
Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2011, 22(4), 412-422

managers is due to the organizational structure. The communication everyone would be informed about the
organization A has a freedom to act, but the freedom is issues in the organization.
restricted by some frames, which are based upon strategic The gap in the interaction between top management
directions. The insufficient horizontal communication and line managers is related also to resources. The
between line managers combining their partial strategic organization B feels the lack of human resources.
decisions by implementing common strategic directions into Accordingly, each line manager attempts to show that the
praxis rises some problems. Due to this fact it is necessary workload of employees in his department is the highest,
not only to define fields, where the agreement between the because this way is only one to get new staff. Seeking to
top management and one of line managers is required, but solve the problem one of possible decisions could be to find
also to determine areas, where a general treaty between the out the workload of employees by making daily photos.
top management and all line managers is in demand. This Summing up, both organizations have determined
proposal was discussed during the interview and a top organizational goals by interacting top management and
manager has assumed that organizational structure creates line managers, however, the key actors have faced some
barriers for interaction: it s not easy to find a common obstacles during interaction. In general, the organization
decision between the top management and line managers. structure, organization culture, communication and
Other reason for the gap in the interaction between top allocation of resources create obstacles for top management
management and line managers is due to organizational and line managers interaction by determining strategic goals.
culture. From the self-evaluation report it is clear that Strategy formulation and implementation. When
opportunism is dominant in the organization A, it means strategic directions are determined, strategy formulation and
that for each department own goal has the priority as implementation into praxis in particular organization areas
compared with common organizational goals. Accepting (fields) are crucial. Based on the self-evaluation reports and
that organizational “culture can act as a kind of interviews material, there were chosen 3 areas, where
organization glue” (Heide et al., 2002), the proposal for strategy formulation and transforming into practical
gap minimizing was to organize more often cultural, environment are complicated for educational organizations:
information events in order to strengthen the belief in the needs analysis, customer relations, human resource
organization’s goals and a willingness to exert considerable management.
effort on behalf of the organization. Needs analysis. Needs analysis means the use of
The gap in interaction between the key actors is also suitable tools to systematically analyse the needs of the
related to an allocation of resources. The organization A customers. This is significant due to an intensive competition
has limited financial and physical resources, therefore each in educational sector.
line manager puts efforts trying to get more. Under such Organization A. In organization A the need analysis is
circumstances the danger that the implementation strategic not only the responsibility of top management, but also
directions into praxis will be forgotten emerges. Referring line managers should put the efforts seeking to get a
to Olsen et at. (1992), Heide et al. (2002) stated, that the clearly defined needs analysis. However, due to an
allocation of financial resources also affects the allocation organizational structure there arises the gap in interaction.
of human resources. Due to this fact, it is significant to Top management has involved some of line managers and
follow the transparency principle by allocating resources. employees in the team group concerning the need analysis:
Organization B. In the organization B the main reason the working group gives the proposal regarding tools,
for gap in interaction between top management and line procedures, extend and frequency. But the decisions of this
managers is related to organizational structure. According working group are not more a discussion object by other
to Thorpe & Morgan (2007), the organizational structure employees, including line managers. In order to involve as
influences the flow of information and in the organization much as possible line managers and assume that the needs
B very strict hierarchy does not allow all line managers to analysis is the key issue for educational organization, the
provide new ideas discussing strategic directions as the framework for the needs analysis should be established.
mission or vision of the organization and goals. The The gap in the interaction between top management
proposal was not to miss the possibility to use creativity of and line managers is also because of communication.
all line managers and employ advantages of synergy. Top Referring to Hambrick and Cannella (1989), Heide et al.
manager has refused the proposal emphasizing that all line (2002) emphasize the importance of selling the strategy
managers that are able to provide new approaches for goals upwards, downwards and across the organization, which in
can do it, however these ideas should be aligned with turn demands an efficient communication system. The
already existing strategic directions. organization A does not follow this statement, because not
Similarly, communication creates the gap in the all line managers are aware of the results of needs analysis,
interaction between top management and line managers. it means that top-down communication should be
According to self-evaluation report, it is clear that top strengthened: the meetings and intranet could be suitable
management, line managers and employees do not spread means.
information on time and using all appropriate channels. Organization B. In the organization B the gap in
Due to this fact the organization B misses some deadlines interaction between top management and line managers is
or some activities are duplicated. Seeking to solve this due to the organizational structure. The organization B
problem the organization should prepare the communication highlights that tools for the need analysis were determined
within organization plan: due to top-down and down-top by top management, meanwhile procedures, extend and

- 417 -
Asta Savaneviciene, Zivile Stankeviciute. The Interaction between Top Management and Line Managers…

frequency for the analysis were discussed by top The gap in the interaction between top management
management together with line managers. A clear and line managers is formed due to limited financial and
distribution of tasks in the needs analysis makes interaction physical resources. This influences the quality of training
more complicated and working groups or discussions could opinions and other services for customers. The problem
facilitate by solving the problem. could be solved by an active participation in projects,
The influence for the gap in interaction has also an where to get some physical resources is available. This
allocation of resources. The organization B does not have proposal was accepted just partly: the participation in
enough staff, so the needs analysis is done by employees, projects requires more human resources.
who because of an intensive workload cannot concentrate Organization B. The organization B focuses on the gap
on such important issue for education organization. The in interaction between top management and line managers
treatment of the needs analysis as a primary activity of the because of the organizational structure. Following the
organization B could help to minimize the gap in statement of Thorpe and Morgan (2007) that the structure
interaction by key actors. allocates power and responsibility, top management
The communication also creates the gap in interaction, determines the procedure how to communicate with very
while in organization B line managers provide the results important customers. The responsibility for dealing with
on the need analysis to top management, but top customers is allocated to line managers: they follow legal
management does not give feedback, although, according rules and requirements. The problem arises due to an
to Cocks (2010), open and direct feedback and unclear complains process: top management can change
communication are critical. Due to the lack of feedback, the decisions of the line manager without any explanations.
the possibility for line managers to initiate the modification Clear complains procedures could facilitate the interaction
in the need analysis is poor. In order to improve the between top management and line managers, so the
interaction, the feedback concerning the need analysis internal rules for complains dealing are in demand.
should be mutual. The gap in interaction between key actors arises also
Customer relations. Recognizing that the ways the due to communication. Top management and line
organization deals with customers have an impact on managers top-down, down-top spread the information
survival and long term competition, both organizations about customers within organization, though do not
treat learners (primary customers) as partners and all communicate outside. For the public just limited
processes which deal with customer relations seek to orient information is offered giving reasons for learners personal
to the needs of the customers. privacy security. Due to that fact, public opinion about the
Organization A. In the organization A the gap in organization B is not positive and top management
interaction between top management and line managers is receives quite a lot of complains. To deal with outside
due to the organizational structure. Top management communication problem, knowledge of public relations is
identifies the key customers, line managers and all needed. The top manager agreed to prepare and offer
employees are aware of learners enrolment procedures, regularly a report for the society about customers and
frequency and extent. Yet, the problems are concerning the relation with them inside the organization B.
enterprises, willing to make projects and combine science As it was mentioned, the organization B does not have
outcomes and business performance. Due to organizational enough human resources. Referring to Bolman and Deal
structure, the enterprises have to fill in huge amount of (1991), Heide et al. (2002) highlight that the organization
documents, to meet employees, who do not have the right cannot function properly without the energy and talent of
to make the decision. This does not create a positive public its employees. The lack of the staff is the factor that has an
opinion about the organization A amongst business units. influence on customer satisfaction. The contract with
Seeking to solve the problem, the simplification of another company for public relations and information
procedures and clear responsibility of line managers are in preparation concerning customer care processes, protection
demand. measures and an enrolment process would be one of the
The gap in the interaction between top management possible solutions of the problem.
and line managers is because of organizational culture. Human resource management. The link between
Every line manager tries to keep in secret his customers human resources and organizational performance is widely
from business environment, so the values and norms of discussed in scientific literature (Paauwe, 2009). Whereas
publicity ant transparency are forgotten. The code of it is acknowledged that human resources and human
conduct could be the start for a problem solution. resource management impact on the organizational
The gap in interaction forms due to communication. At performance, the interaction between top management and
the top management and line managers meetings the line managers for both organizations seems significant.
information about key customers is presented, but it is not Organization A. The gap in interaction between top
a discussion concerning the winning of new customers and management and line managers forms due to organizational
customer protection measures. The open communication structure. Top management in collaboration with human
and creativity of line managers could introduce the frame resource manager formulates human resource management
for winning new learners. The proposal to use a strategy and the main responsibility for its implementation
brainstorming technique by developing new ideas was lies on line managers. However, line managers can initiate
discussed during an interview, acknowledging that changes and new things concerning skill-enhancing,
communication is one of the barriers for a successful motivation-enhancing and empowerment-enhancing
interaction between key actors. human resource management practices. The problem is

- 418 -
Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2011, 22(4), 412-422

that top management and line managers do not intensively was accepted by the top manager with one exception: top
interact regarding talent pool formation, employees management can choose and even indicate the channels of
appraisal and new competencies development. It means communication for line managers.
that due to an organizational structure top management As it was mentioned before, the organization B feels
does not know the talented staff and line managers are not the lack of human resources. Due to this fact the staff is
familiar with the job vacancies which could be the right overcrowded and not satisfied with human resource
work place for their department employees. One of the management. The gap in the interaction of top
proposals was to produce a career plan for each employee management and line managers happens as a result of the
and to introduce these plans to all line managers and top disagreement how to motivate and to engage employees, as
management. Another proposal includes development an overcrowded staff is not satisfied with work in general.
plans. Both proposals were accepted by the top manager, The proposals were: first, to revise the job specifications
assuming that vertical and horizontal career possibilities and staff profiles; second, to redistribute duties and
within organization A are not very big. responsibilities; third, to find financial resources and to
The gap in interaction of the key actors in human employ new workers. The top manager acknowledged that
resource management is also due to resources. The resources are an obstacle for the interaction between key
organization A does not have enough financial resources in actors, however agreed just with the first and second
order to create possibilities for all employees to take part in proposals.
trainings and seminars, wherefore line managers compete Summing up, it could be stated, that in both
for these resources. The proposal was that the development organizations the interaction between top management and
plans should be created by line managers and employees line managers by formulation and implementation needs an
together and confirmed by top management. analysis, customer relations and human resource
Communication is one of the obstacles for interaction. management strategies have focused mainly on barriers
Huge amount of information and not always spread on due to the organizational structure and communication.
time has an influence on human resource and their These obstacles are related to hierarchy, opportunism,
management. According to Heide et al. (2002), insufficient vertical and horizontal communication and the
information related to the implementation of a strategy lack of resources. Due to barriers, the gap in interaction
should be communicated orally as well as in writing, and between top management and line managers arises, hereby
in some cases even visually too, therefore the organization the difference between the strategy as a plan and the
A could create in intranet the data bank for human resource strategy as a pattern grows.
and their management practices, hereby to facilitate the
solution of interaction problem. The proposal was accepted Conclusions
just partly: top manager agreed on the data bank for human
resource management, but only top management and line 1. The realization of the strategic directions requires
managers could have access to it. appropriate concreteness that depends on various aspects
Organization B. Concerning the organization B, the and due to this the organization needs the strategy. It has
gap in the interaction between the key actors in a human been long recognized that there is difference between
resource management strategy formulation and intended and implemented strategies. The intended strategy
implementation is due to the organizational structure. The represents only fundamental directions and one of the main
main responsibility for the recruitment and selection, challenges is to implement it, it means to put the
training and development, performance appraisal is put on formulated strategy to work. Top management and line
line managers, a human resource manager is responsible managers are key actors in the process of bringing strategic
just for human resource administration. According to the directions to the practical environment. Top management
self-evaluation report line managers do not have defines where to go, whereas line managers deal with how
competence to formulate and implement actions regarding to do. The interaction between top management and line
human resources. The proposal was binary: first, to managers provides clear formulation of strategic directions
provide line managers with the knowledge how to manage and equal perception, strengthens organizational
human resources; second, to more involve human resource commitment, provides organizational empowerment and
manager in human resource management practices gives an opportunity to make the correlations of some
formulation and implementation. strategic directions. However, the gap in interaction
It is important, that the gap in interaction between top between key actors by implementing strategic direction
management and line managers occurs because of into praxis arises. As the main assumptions influencing the
communication. According to Dandira (2011), there is the interaction between top management and line managers are
need for top management to have hard and soft skills and the organizational structure, organizational culture,
to have good interpersonal skills. Due to these features the communication and allocation of resources. These
communication process could be easier, however top obstacles create a gap in interaction process and this is one
management communicates just separate parts of the of the reasons for inadequacy between the strategy as a
information concerning human resource management, plan and the strategy as a pattern. Top management and
meanwhile desires to get from line managers full line managers can interact in all activities that run in
information that regards employees. This inadequacy organization, however, some dimensions, as determination
makes difficult to interact, therefore the complex spread of of goals, strategy formulation and strategy implementation
information from both sides is in demand. This proposal are more important, as the interaction between main actors

- 419 -
Asta Savaneviciene, Zivile Stankeviciute. The Interaction between Top Management and Line Managers…

in these fields is essential seeking to implement strategic organizational structure and communication. These
directions into praxis. obstacles are related to hierarchy, opportunism, insufficient
2. The empirical study reveals that both organizations vertical and horizontal communication. Due to the barriers
have determined strategic directions during the process of the gap in interaction between the key actors arises, hereby
top management and line managers interaction, however, the difference between intended and implemented
the key actors have faced the obstacles as an organizational strategies grows. Seeking to minimize the gap and to
structure, organizational culture, the communication and facilitate the interaction of top management and line
allocation of resources. In both organizations top managers by implementing the strategic direction into
management and line managers in their interaction by praxis the obstacles should be overcome due to the changes
formulation and implementation of the strategies of the in organizational structure, culture, communication and
needs analysis, customer relations and human resource allocation of resources.
management have coped mainly with barriers due to the

References
Aaltonen, P., & Ikavalko, H. (2002). Implementing strategies successfully. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13 (6), 415-
418.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative research in the built
environment: application of “mixed“research approach. Work study, 51(1), 17-31.
Barker III, V. L., & Barr, P. S. (2002). Linking top manager attributions to strategic reorientation in declining firms
attempting turnarounds. Journal of Business Research, 55, 963-979.
Buoziute-Rafanaviciene, S., Pundziene, A., & Turauskas, L. (2009). Relation between the attributes of executive successor
and organizational performance. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(2), 65-74.
Camelo, C., Alles, M. F., & Hernandez, A. B. (2010). Strategic consensus, top management teams, and innovation
performance. International Journal of Manpower, 31(6), 678-695.
Cocks, G. (2010). Emerging concepts for implementing strategy. The TQM Journal, 22 (3), 260-266.
Cole, M. S., Harris, S. G., & Bernerth, J. B. (2006). Exploring the implications of vision, appropriateness, and execution of
organizational change. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27 (5), 352-367.
Dandira, M. (2011). Involvement of implementers: missing element in strategy formulation. Business Strategy Series, 12
(1), 30-34.
Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry, J. (2006). Creating a market orientation: a longitudinal, multiform, grounded
analysis of cultural transformation. Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 37-55.
Giner, M. T. C., Guerrero, R. F., & Ortiz, M. P. (2010). Changing the strategy formation process in a service cooperative.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23 (4), 435-452.
Gudonavicius, L., Bartoseviciene, V., & Saparnis, G. (2009). Imperatives for enterprise Strategists. Inzinerine Ekonomika-
Engineering Economics(1), 75-82.
Hales, C. (2006). Moving down the line? The shifting boundary between middle and first-line management. Journal of
General Management, 32(2), 31-55.
Harrington, R. J. (2006). The moderating effects of size, manager tactics and involvement on strategy implementation in
foodservice.
Heide, M., Gronhaug, K., & Johannessen, S. (2002). Exploring barriers to the successful implementation of a formulated
strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 217-231.
Helfat, C. E., Harris, D., & Wolfson, P. J. (2006). The pipeline to the top: women and men in the top executive ranks of
U.S. corporations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(4), 42-64.
Hill, Ch. W. L., & Jones, G. R. (2001) Strategic Management. Houghton Mifflin.
Hyde, K. F. (2000). Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative Marker Research: an
International Journal, 3 (2), 82-89.
Kakabadse, A., McMahon, J. T., & Myers, A. (1995). Correlates of internal and external leadership of top management
teams: an international comparative study. Leadership and Organization development journal, 16 (7), 10-17.
Kazlauskaite, R., & Buciuniene, I. (2008). The role of human resources and their management in the establishment of
sustainable competetive advantage. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(5), 78-84.
McCarthy, A., Darcy, C., & Grady, G. (2010). Work-life balance policy and practice: Understanding line managers
attitudes and behaviors. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 158-167.
Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2007). The relationship between ‘high performance work practices and employee attitudes: an
investigation of additive and interaction effects. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18 (4), 537-
67.

- 420 -
Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2011, 22(4), 412-422

Marchington, M., & Grugulis, I. (2000). Best practice HRM: perfect opportunity or dangerous illusion?. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 11 (4), 905-925.
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9), 934–948.
Moore, M. E., Konrad, A. M., & Hunt, J. (2010). Creating a vision boosts the impact of top management support on the
employment of managers with disabilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29 (6), 609-
626.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 14 (2), 224-247.
Nguyen, H. N., & Mohamed, S. (2011). Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and knowledge management
practices. An empirical investigation. Journal of Management Development, 30 (2), 206-221
Nollet, J., Ponce, S., & Campbell, L. (2005). About “strategy” and “strategies” in supply management. Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 11, 129-140.
Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and prospects. Journal of Management
Studies, 46(1), 129-142.
Popova, V., & Sharpanskykh, A. (2011). Formal modelling of organisational goals based on performance indicators. Data
Knowl. Eng. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2011.01.001
Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S. Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2003). Understanding the people and performance link:
unlocking the black box. London.
Rodriguez, N. G., Perez, M. J. S., & Gutierrez, J. A. T. (2008). Can a good organizational climate compensate for a lack of
top management commitment to new product development? Journal of Business Research, 61, 118-131.
Schein, E. H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd Ed., Jossey-Bass.
Shahalizadeh, M., Amirjamshidi, G., & Shahalizadeh, S. (2009). Benchmarking of thesis research: a case study.
Benchmarking: an International Journal, 16 (1), 103-123.
Thornhill, A., & Saunders, M. N. K. (1998). What if line managers don’t realize they’re responsible for HR? Lessons from
an organization experiencing rapid change. Personnel Review, 27 (6), 460-476.
Thorpe, E. R., & Morgan, R. E. (2007). In pursuing of the “ideal approach” to successful marketing strategy
implementation. European Journal of Marketing, 41 (5/6), 659-677.
Vanttinen, M., & Pyhalto, K. (2009). Strategy process as an innovative learning environment. Management Decision, 45
(5), 778-791.
Warnock, D (2000). Understanding strategy. Strategy and Leadership, 28, 25-30.
Wood, S., & Wall, T. (2007). Work enrichment and employee voice in human resource management-performance studies.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18 (7), 1335-1372.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Method, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Zech, R. (2008). Handbuch Qualitaet in der Weiterbildung. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag.

Asta Savanevičien÷, Živil÷ Stankevičiūt÷

Aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveika įgyvendinant strategines kryptis


Santrauka

Organizacijos s÷kmei priklausant nuo dviejų veiksnių, t. y. nuo to, kaip efektyviai ji geba valdyti vidinius procesus ir kaip jos elgesys dera su
išorin÷s aplinkos sąlygomis (Popova ir Sharpanskykh, 2011), did÷ja organizacijos strateginių krypčių ir strategijos vert÷. Strategin÷ms kryptims,
jungiančioms misiją, viziją ir nustatančioms tai, ką organizacija ketina pasiekti, įgyvendinti reikia konkretumo. Konkretumas atsispindi strategijoje,
kurios rengimas ir įgyvendinimas yra procesas, apimantis daugybę veiklų, taip pat skirtingus dalyvius.
Pripažįstant skirtumą tarp numatytosios ir įgyvendintosios strategijų (Mintzberg, 1987), aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveika
yra pagrindinis aspektas, mažinant strategijų neatitikimą. Mokslin÷je literatūroje akcentuojama: egzistuojant sindromui, kad strategijos formulavimas –
tai aukščiausio lygmens vadovų priederm÷ (Dandira, 2011), būtina kitus dalyvius įtraukti į procesą, nes tai užtikrina pritarimą pokyčiams (Moore ir kt.,
2010). Kadangi tiesioginiai vadovai betarpiškai bendrauja su darbuotojais ir perteikia jiems organizacijos tikslus, tai jų dalyvavimas rengiant strategiją
yra esminis. Analogiškai ir strategijos įgyvendinimo procese aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų vaidmenys susiję: nors tiesioginiai
vadovai priima sprendimus d÷l strategijos įgyvendinimo veiksmų, tačiau aukščiausio lygmens vadovai kuria palaikančią (įkvepiančią) atmosferą.
Problema – kaip pasiekti sąveiką tarp aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų ir kokios yra sąveikos dimensijos, siekiant įgyvendinti
organizacijos strategines kryptis.
Straipsnio tikslas – teoriškai ir empiriškai išnagrin÷ti sąveiką tarp aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų, atskleidžiant sąveikos
pagrindines dimensijas.
Tyrimo metodas – mokslin÷s literatūros analiz÷ ir sintez÷, kokybinis tyrimas (atvejo analiz÷ ir interviu).
Mintzberg (1987) teigimu, egzistuoja mažiausiai dvi strategijos: numatytoji strategija ir įgyvendintoji strategija. Numatytoji strategija pateikia
fundamentalias kryptis, o jos įgyvendinimas yra vienas iš pagrindinių iššūkių. Pasak Aaltonen ir Ikavalko (2002), organizacijos, įgyvendindamos
strategiją, susiduria su problemomis, kurias sąlygoja silpna vadybin÷ veikla, nepakankamas įsipareigojimas strategijai, neadekvačios organizacijos
sistemos ir ištekliai, taip pat bloga koordinacija ir atsakomyb÷s paskirstymas. Heide ir kt. nuomone (2002), tik įgyvendinus numatytąją strategiją
sukuriama vert÷ organizacijai, nors įgyvendintoji strategija n÷ra adekvati numatytajai. Neatitikimą sąlygoja dinamiška aplinka ir nukrypimas nuo
numatytosios strategijos gali būti traktuojamas kaip teigiamas reiškinys, t. y. organizacijos geb÷jimas greitai reaguoti į pokyčius, prisitaikant prie jų. Vis

- 421 -
Asta Savaneviciene, Zivile Stankeviciute. The Interaction between Top Management and Line Managers…

d÷lto egzistuoja ir probleminis šio nukrypimo aspektas, kai nesugebama suvokti ir (arba) įgyvendinti tai, kas įtvirtinta numatytojoje strategijoje, tod÷l
netgi „gera“ strategija gali likti neįgyvendinta. Šiame kontekste iškyla dviejų strategijų neatitikimo priežasčių klausimas. Heide ir kt. (2002) teigimu,
siekiant s÷kmingai įgyvendinti strategiją reikia sąmoningų ir aktyvių veiksmų, jungiančių daugyb÷s dalyvių ir veiklų koordinavimą – būtina nustatyti
pagrindinius dalyvius, s÷kmingos jų sąveikos prielaidas ir esmines sąveikos dimensijas.
Sąveikos subjektai. Aukščiausio lygmens vadovai ir tiesioginiai vadovai yra pagrindiniai dalyviai įgyvendinant organizacijos strategines kryptis.
Aukščiausio lygmens vadovai yra atsakingi už strateginius sprendimus, darančius įtaką visos organizacijos veiklai (Helfat ir kt., 2006; Camelo ir kt.,
2011), o jų tik÷jimas ir interpretacijos daro poveikį konkretiems sprendimams (Barker III ir Barr, 2002). Mokslin÷je literatūroje taip pat akcentuojama
aukščiausio lygmens vadovų įtaka organizacijos pokyčių procesui (Gebhardt ir kt., 2006), naujų produktų kūrimui (Rodriguez ir kt., 2008) ir inovacijų
diegimui (Camelo ir kt., 2011). Tuo tarpu tiesioginiai vadovai, McCarthy ir kt. (2010) teigimu, tarpininkauja įgyvendinant strategines ir operatyvines
organizacijos veiklas.
Aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveika yra svarbi d÷l keletos priežasčių: pirma, sąveika sąlygoja aiškų strateginių krypčių
suformulavimą ir adekvatų krypčių supratimą abiejų subjektų lygmeniu. Antra, tiesioginių vadovų įtraukimas į strategijos formulavimą stiprina jų
įsipareigojimą organizacijai. Trečia, sąveika įgalina tiesioginius vadovus. Ketvirta, tiesioginiai vadovai pastebi problemas „žemesniu“ lygmeniu ir
remdamiesi sąveika jas transformuoja į auktesnįjį valdymo lygmenį. Penkta, tiesioginiai vadovai „suteikia praktikoms gyvybę“ (Purcell ir kt., 2003) ir
nesielgia „kaip robotai konformistai“ (Marchington ir Grugulis, 2000), tod÷l jų asmenyb÷ ir elgsena turi būti įvertinti rengiant ir įgyvendinant strategiją.
Pagrindin÷s prielaidos sąveikai. Nustatant aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveikos svarbą, išgryninami galimi sąveikos
rezultatai, tačiau nepateikiamas atsakymas į klausimą, kod÷l subjektams kyla sunkumų sąveikos procese. Pasak Heide ir kt. (2002), vienos iš pagrindinių
prielaidų, darančių įtaką sąveikai, yra organizacijos struktūra, organizacijos kultūra, komunikacija ir išteklių paskirstymas.
Esmin÷s sąveikos dimensijos. Nors aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveika galima visose veiklos srityse, tačiau tikslų
nustatymas, strategijos rengimas ir įgyvendinimas yra trys pagrindin÷s sritys, kur sąveika įgyvendinant strategines kryptis praktin÷je veikloje yra būtina.
Kiekviena organizacija egzistuoja tam, kad pasiektų konkrečius tikslus, o vadovų sąveika bei sinergija remiantis „proto šturmu“ leidžia nustatyti tikslus,
kurie skatina ilgalaikį konkurencinį pranašumą. Strategijos formavimas nors dar ir laikomas išimtine aukščiausio lygmens vadovų veiklos sritimi
(Raffoni, 2003; Cocks, 2010), tačiau yra procesas, kai id÷jos kartais kyla intuityviai arba tiesiogiai konkretų darbą atliekantiems asmenims (Giner ir kt.,
2010). Tai pagrindžia, kad būtina sąveika tarp vadovų strategijos formavimo dimensijoje. Analogiškai, įgyvendinant strategiją, vykdant nustatytas
programas bei veiklas ir naudojant išteklius, aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveika leidžia mažinti atotrūkį tarp numatytosios ir
įgyvendintosios strategijų.
Empirinis tyrimas. Kokybinis tyrimas atliktas dviejose tęstinio mokymo institucijose, įgyvendinančiose į besimokantįjį orientuotą kokyb÷s
vertinimą pagal LEONARDO DA VINCI inovacijų perk÷limo projektą „Kokyb÷s valdymas nepakankamos kompetencijos asmenims tęstinio mokymo
paslaugas teikiančiose organizacijose Europos kontekste“ (Nr.2009-1-PL1-LE05-05039). Organizacijų savianaliz÷s ataskaitos yra analiz÷s objektas,
kuriuo vadovaujantis ekspertai interviu su mokymo instutucijų vadovais metu išgrynino aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveikos
trikdžius.
Analizuojant aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveiką tikslų nustatymo dimensijoje, atskleista, kad abiejose organizacijose ne tik
vadovai, bet ir darbuotojai buvo įtraukti į tikslų nustatymo procesą. Organizacijos pabr÷ž÷, kad suformuluota vizija, misija ir strateginiai tikslai yra
interaktyvaus proceso rezultatas, tačiau organizacijos struktūra, kultūra, komunikacija ir resursai sudar÷ kliūtis sąveikos procesui vykti.
Nagrin÷jant aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveiką, strategijos formulavimo ir įgyvendinimo procese pasirinktos trys sritys,
kurios mokymo institucijoms yra vienos iš komplikuočiausių, t. y. poreikių nustatymas, santykiai su klientais ir žmogiškųjų išteklių valdymas.
Straipsnyje detaliai analizuojamos sąveikos prielaidos, nustatant, kad organizacijos struktūra ir komunikacija yra esmin÷s kliūtys sąveikai vykti nustatant
poreikius, palaikant santykius su klientais ir valdant žmogiškuosius išteklius. Kliūtys susijusios su hierarchine struktūra, oportunizmu, nepakankama
vertikalia ir horizontalia komunikacija.
Formuluojama išvada, kad organizacijos strategin÷s kryptys yra konkretizuojamos numatytojoje strategijoje, kuri n÷ra adekvati įgyvendintajai
strategijai. Reziumuojant aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveikos būtinybę, įgyvendinant strategines kryptis praktikoje ir taip
mažinant numatytosios ir įgyvendintosios strategijos neatitikimą, pažymima, jog organizacijos struktūra, organizacijos kultūra, komunikacija ir išteklių
paskirstymas yra esmin÷s prielaidos, darančios įtaką sąveikos kokybei. Taip pat akcentuojama, kad tikslų nustatymas, strategijos formulavimas ir
įgyvendinimas yra esmin÷s sritys, kur sąveika yra būtina.
Atlikus empirinį tyrimą, daroma išvada, kad tęstinio mokymo organizacijose organizacijos struktūra, jos kultūra, komunikacija ir išteklių
paskirstymas daro įtaką aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir tiesioginių vadovų sąveikai. Taip susidaro numatytosios ir įgyvendintosios strategijų neatitikimas.
Raktažodžiai: strategija, strategijos įgyvendinimas, aukščiausio lygmens vadovai, tiesioginiai vadovai, sąveika tarp aukščiausio lygmens vadovų ir
tiesioginių vadovų.

The article has been reviewed.


Received in April, 2011; accepted in October, 2011.

- 422 -

S-ar putea să vă placă și